Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 April 25

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 25

Brave New World

What does "Suffer the Little Children" have to do with Brave New World? 71.97.15.175 00:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)nicholassayshi

It's a small reference to be found towards the end of Chapter 3, Nick, where the Controller, Mustapha Mond, taking on a Christ-like role, says 'Suffer the little children', meaning to allow the children to come into his presence when attempts are made to chase them away. Clio the Muse 00:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And in case you didn't know, Suffer the little children is a quote from the New Testament. Jesus was preaching, some children tried to come up to him and the disciples shooed them away. Jesus said "Suffer the little children to come unto me, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven". 217.43.138.193 18:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Which ethnic groups of Afghanistan are Shi'a Muslims and which language do they speak? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.119.64 (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

See Islam in Afghanistan. Skimming that article, I find that the most numerous Shi'a groups are Hazara speaking Hazaragi and Farsiwan (ethnically Tajiks) speaking a dialect of Persian. Algebraist 08:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Hazaragi is also a dialect of Farsi (Persian). The ethnic Tajiks speak the Dari dialect of Farsi (Persian). The two dialects have a fair degree of mutual intelligibility, I believe. Marco polo 17:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan 2

I noticed in the Afghanistan article, four provinces(#7, 19, 31 and 32) spoke the same language(Dari), but three ethnic groups speak this language: Pashtuns, Turkmen and Uzbeks. How come these groups speak Dari instead of their languages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.119.64 (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I gather that you are looking at the two maps of ethnic groups and languages. The picture is much more complex than this map shows. The map shows the predominant ethnic group and the predominant language in each province. However, most, if not all, provinces of Afghanistan are home to several groups speaking several languages. In the provinces you mention, Dari is the predominant language even though neither Tajiks nor Hazara (the groups that speak Dari natively) are the predominant ethnic group. However, these are provinces where no ethnic group forms a majority. It may be that in these provinces, the Hazara and Tajiks together have a larger population than the largest single ethnic group. It may also be that in these multi-ethnic, multilingual provinces, most people use Dari to communicate with strangers because it is simply the language that everyone knows (often as a second language). Marco polo 17:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy meets Nikita Khrushchev

In an interview with Anthony DePalma on Australia's A.B.C.radio (promoting his book 'The man who invented Fidel') he said that Kennedy asked Khruschev if Castro was a communist. The reply was 'Only if you make him one". I cannot find any referance to their meeting untill Kennedy had become president and Castro was allready known to be a communist. Did they meet prior to Kennedy becoming president?

220.237.96.87 01:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The hysteria in the US regarding communism is difficult to quantify, and not uniform. At the time, there was a distinction drawn, which still exists, between socialism and communism. JFK was a Democrat party member and needed to demonstrate to his constituent voters that he wasn't aligned with communists, but also not aligned with Republican Party conservatives.

Nikita Kruschev was caught in a vice. On the one hand, he was moderate to Leonid Breshnev. However, he was also the man who took Stalin's handgun from bedside and executed Beria. The result of the Cuban Missile Crisis had Russia take missiles from Cuba, and the US take missiles from Turkey. The fact the US could trumpet their success, but Soviet's were bound to silence over theirs, led Krushchev to be rolled by Breshnev. The reported warning was a Cassandra warning regarding the stakes, that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation wilfully mischaracterises. DDB 03:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's truer to say that wilful mischaracterisation, if any, was by Anthony DePalma, not the ABC. The broadcaster can't be held accountable for every opinion offered by people interviewed on-air. JackofOz 05:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, JFK was a member of the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet Anthony DePalma link doesn't mention any leanings or politics. The ABC's are well known, if not agreed upon. DDB 05:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet it was DePalma (apparently - I didn't hear the interview) who made the statement, not the ABC. I didn't think the questioner was asking about the political leanings of either DePalma or the ABC, but about whether Castro and JFK ever met before the latter became president. JackofOz 12:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fidel Castro visited the United States in April 1959, not long after the overthrow of Batista, on the invitation of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. There were already suspicions in Washington about the general political direction of the Cuban Revolution, and the then President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, took steps to avoid him, though he had a meeting with Vice-President Nixon, who later said, with some degree of insight, that the Cuban dictator was "either incredibly naïve about communism or under communist discipline-my guess is the former." John F. Kennedy was a senator at the time of the visit, and I do not believe ever met Castro. Likewise, I have found nothing to indicate that he had a meeting with Kruschev prior to becoming President, in which Castro was the topic of conversation. De Palma's point is obviously broadly rhetorical, inaccurate or misremembered. Might it refer to a meeting between Nixon and Kruschev, or even Eisenhower and Kruschev?

DDB, I'm puzzled by some of what you have written above. Brezhnev was, in fact, one of Kruschev's protégées, and a loyal supporter against the Stalinist old-guard in the party. It was only when his mentor's behaviour became increasingly erratic that he turned against him, and this dates to 1963. It was only after he assumed power in 1964 that he began to move in a hard-line, neo-Stalinist direction. However, the more perplexing point you make concerns the death of Beria. Am I right in thinking that you believe that he was shot in person by Kruschev, using Stalin's own handgun? Did Stalin have a handgun? I think, perhaps, I must be misreading this. There is certainly some ambiguity surrounding the death of Beria, though the generally accepted story is that he was shot after a brief tribunal in December 1953. His executioner, General Batitsky, was later promoted to the rank of Marshall for his role in the affair. (Stalin:the Court of the Red Tsar, by Simon Sebag Montefiore, 2003 p. 579) Do you have any evidence to suggest the contrary? Clio the Muse 07:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Clio, I read an interview, some years ago, with a third party present with Kruschev and Brezhnev at the execution of Beria. Their phrasing was to the effect that the execution took place from the death bed of Stalin, and Kruschev's definite actions gave his cause credibility in hardline eyes. Reading accounts on wiki of Beria's death, and the timing, I believe that the account (a translation) was a metaphore .. not clever research on my part. No intent to be misleading. DDB 20:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not assume that for a moment. Clio the Muse 22:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hazara

When Arshad Warsi and John Abraham's movie came out, Hazaras protested the movie. Why the movie have affected them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.119.64 (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

• See the article on the movie, Kabul Express. --Metropolitan90 06:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking for the name and author of a poem!

Hi, I'm looking for the name and author of a poem I read while taking the SAT II literature portion. I took the SAT IIs back in November, so I may have remembered some parts of it incorrectly..

Anyway, it was about a group of adults and children sitting around the living room on a Sunday afternoon. The adults kind of stare off into space, and eventually it gets darker and darker in the room. Finally, one of the adults snaps out of it and gets up and turns on the light. I think the point was that the coming darkness represented the darkness of knowledge and adulthood, and that the light represented innocence and childhood.

That's all I can remember. Any help is greatly appreciated! Paerra 05:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Saki mentions Allies marching into Paris before 1904

In Saki's short story Reginald, the first story of a 1904 collection by the same name, there is the quote, "With a little encouragement, they will inquire if I saw the Allies march into Paris." Since the work was published in 1904 and Saki died in 1916 it can't refer to the Paris liberation of either World War. Searching "Allies" didn't turn up anything beyond the WW Allies. Although within the same paragraph he mentions Victoria's Diamond Jubilee (1897) and the play San Toy (1899), he may be referring facetiously to something that occurred much earlier. So any knowledge as to who these pre-World War "Allies" who marched into Paris are? Tantei Kid 07:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've not read the poem and don't know the author, but have you looked at Paris? One possibility involved the Burgundians in the 1400's .. DDB 07:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read most of the story either, but I looked at the passage before posting. As the original poster says, the scene is clearly taking place in the 1890s or later; I don't think it can be referring a 15th century event.

I did a Google search on "marched into Paris" 1850..1904 -1940 -nazis. The Germans (Prussians) occupied Paris in 1871, but "allies" would not refer to that. My guess is that the answer is that the "allies" are the Sixth Coalition of 1814, and that he's talking about young women who've heard of a historic event and don't realize it was 85-90 years ago.

--Anonymous, April 25, 2007, 07:48, rewritten 07:53 (UTC).

Thank you, both. I can see Reginald being sarcastic enough to refer to the 15th century, but the Sixth Coalition does look the most promising. Tantei Kid 07:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Tantei Kid

I agree that this probably refers to the anti-Napoleon Allies who entered Paris in 1814. Have a look at Battle of Paris (1814) and [1]. --HJMG 07:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Which Reginald story is it Tantei Kid? There are several. Knowing both the character in question, and the ironic and humorous style of Saki, the pen name of the brilliant H. H. Munro, I think it is intended as a sardonic reference to age, wisdom or experience-or a combination of all three. Anonymous and HJMG are almost certainly correct: it cannot refer to anything else but the Allies of the Sixth Coalition-Prussians, Austrians and Russians- entering Paris in 1814. Clio the Muse 08:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for confirming the answer. And I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but the story is simply titled "Reginald"-- it's the first story in the collection called "Reginald", Anonymous linked to it above. Tantei Kid 20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Tantei Kid

Bible -Needs to be Interpreted by a Pope?

According to the Roman Catholicism, althought the Bible is inerrant, we still have to listen to and believe in the teachings, ideas, and claims of the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope because we need them to interpret the Bible for us and tell us what it means. Why do we need some kind of special person like a Pope to interpret the Bible for us? Why can't we simply take what the Bible says literally? The Anonymous One 08:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

<Question edited and some answers removed. See talk. --Dweller 11:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)>

We have an article on priesthood of all believers for the Lutheran rejection of authority. Protestant churches have their ministers interpret scripture, arguably on the basis that the minister will be more trained, more knowledgeable, and holy, and the episcopal churches do the same. Geogre 10:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Also understand that a literal interpretation of any text is still subject to dispute. For any given piece of scripture it is possible that two different people to have two different interpretations that both believe are literal interpretations. For this reason even fundamentalists expect their clergy to have attended some kind of Bible College / seminary so that they will have an educated ability to interpret scripture. That is not to say the you NEED a priest to interpret for you. Remember that all universities in the United States before the founding of the University of Virgina by Thomas Jefferson were essentially religious schools. The colonists believed that anyone should be capable of interpreting the bible, but that an education was needed to be able to do it competently. This is also another reason for the push for universal literacy in the early republic, so that anyone could read the bible for themselves. -Czmtzc 12:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

For instance take Matt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Does this mean that Saint_Peter was literally a piece of stone and that Jesus built a church on top of him? That would be the Literal interpretation. Does that make sense to you? Maybe some interpretation is needed here to understand what Jesus meant. You just don't have to have the Pope do it for you. -Czmtzc 12:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is another thought to consider: don't be lazy! Instead of having someone else "interpret" it for you, what about just using your own common sense as to what the Bible is saying? What does your "gut feeling" tell you in a verse or scripture? Would not this be as good (if not better than) what someone else is telling you what it says? What about using your own judgment as to what the Bible says instead of someone's elses? Is ther judgment better somehow?? Personally I do not go on Biblical literalism, but more on "gut feeling" applying what I refer to as just plain everyday common sense (i.e. practical knowledge). Your thoughts on this?--Doug ^talk 18:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Too many ppl are lazy, dum, stupid, and simply don't like to think. It takes a lot of effort to think and it is way easier to let somebody else think for you and simply obey and follow his teachings. Common sense applies only for the few that think somewhat for themselves. Better the believers follow someone who is relativly moderate and responsable like the pope. I'm being completly serious. Compared to David Koresh, Jim Jones, and Shoko Asahara even the "venerable" Jerry Falwell is an inocent. I grant you that these three examples are the most extreme examples I can qickly remmeber but the fact is that believers followed them blindly to their doom. Flamarande 20:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note the shift in conversation. "Is it true" that the RCC has a hierarchical reading of the Bible is answerable. Even "is literalism viable/possible" is potentially a reference question. On the other hand, "why don't you people do X" is preaching and speculating. It is not something that can be answered with references and therefore is inappropriate to the Reference Desk. It invites, "Well, I think that people..." sorts of answers. Many people have opinions, but they're not a thing we can do on a reference desk. Geogre 10:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Are You Being Served?

I'm putting this here since it's more of a culture question than a television show question...

How accurate was the portrayal of British clothing stores in the television series Are You Being Served?? As an American, not only do I find the show hilarious, I think the formality of the characters interaction is out of this world. And I don't really understand why a store would have a "floorwalker". Was this an actual position? It seems terribly pointless to pay someone to just stand around and point customers towards the sales people. Or did the floorwalker have some duties that weren't really shown in the series? I'm only through most of the first season the second season or "series" as it seems to be called in British English, so maybe the later episodes would help me mentally justify Captain Peacock's position. Dismas|^(talk) 08:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Are You Being Served? is about as accurate a portrayal of British department stores as Happy Days is of American teens, Dismas! The floorwalker was merely the department supervisor and manager, a role that is clearly much more 'hands on' today than it perhaps once was. The word itself, if not the position, is actually American, not British in origin, and you will find a definition in Webster's. Dictionary.com says it originated in the States in the late 1870s. Incidentally, how is the character of Mr. Humphries received 'over there'? I would have thought his camp caricature of homosexuality would have outraged the gay community? Clio the Muse 09:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If the exclamation point at the end of that first sentence was supposed to imply that I was being daft by suggesting that AYBS? may have been accurate, please don't think that I thought that. I realize that it's just a television show so I was wondering just how much of a departure it actually is/was. As far as Mr. Humphries goes (went), I'm not certain how the gay community felt about it at all. Currently, I don't know any people, who I know to be gay, who I feel comfortable enough to strike up that conversation with. My wife and I think that he's funny, if that counts for anything. And as the article here says, his sexual preference isn't really stated outright. Dismas|^(talk) 09:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No, of course not; the exclamation mark was merely there for comic emphasis. Like all comedy, Are You Being Served is a parody and a simplification, much like Happy Days. British department stores were never run like that. Besides, it's now about twenty years into the past, and British comedy has a much harder edge now than in that more innocent age, if I can put it like that. I'm glad you enjoy it, but I am also slightly surprised. The humour is not only so British, but it represents a particular style of Britishness, full of double entendres of a rather silly kind. There is even a book on British taste in television entertainment, would you believe, with the title Mrs Slocombe's Pussy by Stuart Jeffries. You will, I think, understand the reference. I can only take so much of this myself, my own taste in antique comedy running to shows like Monty Python and Blackadder. Anyway, Dismas, are you free? Clio the Muse 11:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Brits tend to be horrified by which old shows American public broadcasting viewers see and enjoy. Are You Being Served, Keeping Up Appearances, and Waiting for God are on regular rotation around the US on the public stations. Of these, the most inexplicable is Are You Being Served, but it's also possibly the most popular. Some view it as camp, I assume. The humor is not so very British as one might assume, although the cultural references will be lost. If Americans can get 90% of the jokes on Monty Python (but not the local geography ones or the Harold Wilson ones, perhaps, or the Viv Stainshall ones), there are certainly cognates, so to speak, for many of the "types" being used. Anyway, I, personally, don't get any of those three, but I'm not sure that I'd regard things like The Young Ones as superio(u)r. Utgard Loki 12:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As Time Goes By is also played here in the States on the public stations. Dismas|^(talk) 12:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I see, so the reality of it is quite like Happy Days indeed... as in, not much. Thanks for straightening me out. I do admit that we don't get all the jokes. It's mostly the ones having to do with British places and celebrities. Mrs. Slocombe once made a comment to a woman who was buying a veil for her wedding that we didn't get at all. Something about going to Beach End or something like that. It wasn't until we went through the trivia in the special features of the DVD that we got that joke. And I do like Monty Python as well as the one season of Blackadder that I've seen, the WWI season. *looks left, looks right* Yes, Clio, I'm free. Dismas|^(talk) 12:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then, Dismas, here is a beauty for you, which I would be absolutely amazed, to put it mildly, if Americans understood. One of the elderly shop assistants, I forget which, was talking about going to Wales on a second honeymoon: "I'm taking my wife to Wales", he said, "to Bangor". This was followed by lots of studio laughs. Now, if you understand that you can have the-virtual-million dollar bonus. If not, please ask and I will try to explain! Clio the Muse 19:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thirteen of These United States have a Bangor, so some Americans should get the joke. —Tamfang 23:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the entire staff should have gone to India, to Bangalore. StuRat 23:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how many people reading this are now thinking ... "Oh crap, now I have that damn theme song from Happy Days stuck in my head :/" ... dr.ef.tymac 14:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

oh crap...:0 Perry-mankster 09:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just two words regarding camp and double entendres (or triple or quadruple multi-lingual entendres): 'Allo 'Allo! Cheers --Geologyguy 14:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As for Mr. Humphries and the reaction of American gay men, I don't own a television but I have seen him once or twice while visiting gay friends. I am a gay American, but I can't speak for all of us. Some may be offended. However, my friends and I were just amused. It is a silly parody of a stupid stereotype. I don't see what there is to be offended about. Marco polo 17:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification, Marco. We live in such a PC world that one tends to assume, especially in the United States, that each and every stereotype will be subject to outrage and challenge. I'm pleased to note that it is not always the case. We take ourselves far too seriously. Clio the Muse 17:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As another gay American, I'll just mention that upon the recent death of John Inman, the only person I personally know who expressed outrage at the Mr. Humphries character is a gay man from Brighton. That's my WP:NOR violation for the month. --LarryMac 17:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Now for my two cents (or is that two pence ?):

1) Happy Days had two theme songs, Happy Days in the later episodes and Rock Around the Clock early on.

2) Mr. Humpries was bisexual, not gay. I wouldn't think the homosexual community would be offended, because there are some homosexuals/bisexuals who do behave in an effeminate manner.

3) I believe AYBS? goes back some 30 years. There was also an Are You Being Served Again ? sequel, I believe: "I'll have you know there have been Moulterds in this house for generations !"..."Yes, that would explain the smell".

4) The type of comedy seems most closely related to the American Three's Company, particularly taking an overhead convo and interpreting it in a sexual (often homosexual) way.

5) I believe an overly formal manner (at least from an American perspective) is common to certain portions of English society. If you read responses here, you can often detect such formality in certain answers (like referring to people in the third person), and tell who is English.

StuRat 22:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That sequel was Grace & Favour, apparently known by the ridiculous title of 'Are You Being Served? Again!' in the US (presumably because it was assumed that Americans wouldn't understand the reference to grace and favour). Australia's been getting a dose of the old British sitcoms recently as well, in the form of Great Comedy Classics which includes AYBS, Some Mothers Do 'ave 'em, and The Benny Hill Show, which while being amusing probably do paint a rather unbalanced picture of "Classic" British comedy (and is also interesting in the fact that all the classics are British, despite there being no such restriction in the title of the show). Confusing Manifestation 05:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why American's in particular should be offended by a stereotypical camp man. I mean they have Will and Grace (personally I don't watch it, not because I am an offended gay man, but because I am a slightly homophobic straight man who finds campness annoying!). I would have thought if anything the Christian right would be more upset by showing homosexuality than gays themselves. After all there were complaints about Spongebob Squarepants! By the way did America ever get Rainbow (TV series)?137.138.46.155 07:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Blank ballots in Argentine elections

Are there statistics available showing a decline or rise in blank ballots during democratic elections in Argentina (1983-2007)?131.174.203.109 10:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Paulina

Real estate question

Can you provide a definition to "tenant in possession" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.39.22.98 (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but after looking at some documents found through Google I believe that a tenant in possesion is someone who rents and lives on a piece of property. Severeal of the documents listed in the above search refer to rights due to the owner or tenant in possesion. For instance in this article the right to shoot coyotes on a piece of property is given to the owner or tenant in possesion, or those given permission by the owner.--Czmtzc 12:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The precise definition depends on the context, the applicable law and what jurisdiction controls the transaction in question. Although Czmtzc gives one example and some conjecture, there are alternate definitions that may be relevant. If you need further details beyond the generalized examples given, see: Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer, Real_property, Leasehold estate, Tenant farmer, Concurrent_estate#Tenancy_in_common. dr.ef.tymac 14:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Common sense and the Bible

Common sense can be defined as:

• that which people in general "sense" in common as their common natural understanding (i.e. obey the laws of the land).
• that in their opinion they consider would in most people's experience be prudent and of sound judgment (i.e. stay healthy).

Jesus taught common sense lessons (i.e. parables) in all four Gospels. There are other examples throughtout the New Testament given by elders. What is the closest term or word used in the Bible to "represent" the above definitions of common sense itself? --Doug ^talk 13:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In Old Testament terms it'd be "Tzedek". That's difficult to translate. It's a melange of righteousness, justice and correct behaviour. It cuts across man/man and man/God relationships. However, the concept of common sense is alien to the Old Testament. The whole dang thing is about how people aren't very good at creating their own moral codes and therefore should accept one pre-packaged for them. Interested to see New Testament answer - I guess the term would be Greek? --Dweller 13:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that excellent answer as it pertains to the Old Testament. Most interested in the New Testament (especially as related to Jesus). What is this Greek term or word?--Doug ^talk 13:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't get a handle on this. Your description of common sense seems very close to conventional morality, and in the Gospels Jesus' teachings are presented as definitely unsettling to conventional morality. If you point to a particular example in the N.T. where the quality you mean is emphasized, I might be able to shed some light on the terms in which it is spoken of. Offhand, the closest I can offer is the parable of the virgins trimming their wicks (Matthew 25:1-13), where the ones who have the good sense (phronimoi) to prepare prudently come out better. You can see all N.T. usages of this word ("wise" KJV) by following this link. Wareh 19:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I do believe you have come up with a Greek word of what I am speaking about of that of Good sense being: phronimoi. Personally I am not looking at this from a morality viewpoint, however just took this definition straight off Wikipedia of common sense. Looking at it more from the viewpoint of Practical Knowledge. Your example is what I am refering to; others are:

• Parable of the Sower
• Parable of the Faithful Servant
• New Wine into Old Wineskins
• new cloth to patch old clothing Mark 2:21

Do you have the equivalent Latin or Italian word also? Are any of these words actually in the New Testament? --Doug ^talk 20:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Prudentia", the source of our "prudence", can mean ";good sense" or "common sense" in Latin. According to this there are 63 occurences of prudentia in the Vulgate. Adam Bishop 22:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Is there another Latin word or Latin term (or even Italian) used in the New Testament that refers to that of what I am referring to of "practical knowledge" of the parables above other than the excellent example you gave me here? --Doug ^talk 22:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, beware this quest. In the case of parables, they were quite often misunderstood by their immediate audience, and Jesus upbraids his disciples and the crowd often enough for not understanding what He was saying. "Let those with ears, hear" and "You have ears but do not hear, eyes but do not see," as well as several instances where "the disciples took him aside privately and asked for the meaning of the parable" suggest that Jesus is appealing to a 'practical' understanding that He finds lacking at the particular moment. Therefore, it's unlikely that Christ would have used a long formulation for this complaint if there were a single word that conveyed all of the nuances of "common sense" in English. This is a separate question from whether the Romans and Greeks had a term for a) the sense that unites disparate concepts (the Lockean "common sense"), b) the sense of things that is inherent to sentience (the "common birthright sense of things"), or c) the sense of things established by human society (the "common person's sense of things"). They more or less did. Utgard Loki 12:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgotten quotation

Can anyone help me to trace a quotation, which I remember so dimly that I can't find it in any of the obvious dictionaries? The context is that someone about to enter a battle or a competition is fearfully contemplating the weaknesses of his own side, forgetting that the opposition will also have doubts. And the quotation is something on the lines of 'Remember, the enemy too is fearful', or 'Remember, the enemy too has doubts', or something like that. Sorry to be so vague, but this dim memory is tormenting me.Maid Marion 13:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Ulysses S. Grant said something like that (referring to one of his earliest contacts with Confederate troops), but I can't track it down... AnonMoos 17:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's on page 213 of "Mask of Command" by John Keegan (probably quoting from Grant's memoirs:

• At the very start of the war, as Colonel of the 21st Illinois, he set out to engage a Confederate regiment operating in the vicinity. Expecting to find it waiting to engage him, he pressed forward only because he lacked the "moral courage to halt". When he found that the enemy had decamped, "my heart resumed its place. It occurred to me at once that [he] had been afraid of me as I had been of him." -- AnonMoos 18:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Relatedly, I was behind someone in a marathon who had a funny shirt that read, "Whenever I race, my mind is filled with doubts: 'who will come in second? who will be third?'". :) --TotoBaggins 03:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Someone has borrowed my "Art Of War" but it sounds like it might be from there.hotclaws**== 11:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like an excerpt from "Art of War" to me, but I'll take your word for it if you can find it. Here is an online copy. dr.ef.tymac 19:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I doubt this is what you're looking for, but Shakespeare's Richard III expresses a similar sentiment:

The sun will not be seen to-day;

The sky doth frown and lour upon our army.

I would these dewy tears were from the ground.

Not shine to-day! Why, what is that to me

More than to Richmond? for the selfsame heaven

That frowns on me looks sadly upon him. AndyJones 19:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. None of this is quite what I had in mind, but I appreciate your efforts. Maid Marion 07:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia largest reference in what languages

Wikipedia is the largest singular work in the English language, as well as in Esperanto. Does anyone know what other languages it could hold this title? A reporter is wanting this info for their article. -- Zanimum 13:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Controlled Substances Act

Is the Controlled Substances Act Constitutional? It seems to overstep what Congress is allowed to do under Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution. The justification of the CSA that I've read [2] seems to disagree with other "interstate commerce" policies such as fireworks and guns. Jolb 14:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My cynical take on this is that Congress uses the Commerce Clause as a blank check to do whatever they want, whether it's Constitutional or not, and as long as that law suits the Supreme Court's political biases, they'll go along with it. Modern examples include striking down gun control and anti-domestic abuse legislation, while upholding anti-medical marijuana legislation. --TotoBaggins 16:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cynical nothing. Cynical would be "the Constitution is irrelevant" ... could it be the OP was really just setting up someone for a rant? dr.ef.tymac 21:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to set anyone on a rant... I just want to know if any judge/legislator ever made a ruling on the constitutionality of the CSA. There should be some judicial opinion on it, given that the CSA must have been challenged in a few higher-court cases in the last forty years. Jolb 00:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In 2004 or 2003, there was a challenge to California's ability to have medical marijuana, in light of the controlled substances act, but I believe that didn't examine the constitutionality of the Act itself and instead focused on whether state or federal law would control what is and is not illegal in drugs. The SC ruled, I think, that states had the right to change what was prosecutable, but the Bush administration has gone on to say that that doesn't matter, because the federal statute was not struck down. Geogre 10:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In Gonzales v Raich the majority essentially said "this is really a question for the legislative branch"; Clarence Thomas's dissent (a thing of beauty imho) said, in part, "But the controversy here is which legislature it belongs to." Raich's position was not a direct challenge to CSA but an argument that Federal authority, even with the blank check of Wickard v Filburn, does not extend to activity entirely outside commerce. (The farmer in Wickard v Filburn maintained that since he wasn't selling his grain it was none of Washington's business; but he fed some of it to hogs, which he sold. I don't know whether the hogs aspect was decisive, or merely that by relieving him of the need to buy grain his crop had the effect of lowering the market price.) —Tamfang 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Transportation in the 1800s

How long would it take to sail (either by passenger sailing ship or early steamship) from France to New England in the mid 1810s? Also in the mid 1850s or so? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.100.122.32 (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Two or three weeks on average, depending on the weather conditions. It took Charles Dickens eighteen days in 1842, sailing from Liverpool to Boston. Sailing from, say, Cherbourg, may have taken a day longer. Clio the Muse 16:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The "mid 1810s" voyage could have been slower. The first steamship crossed the Atlantic in 1819. "The Savannah reached Liverpool in 29 days and 4 hours, a good but not exceptional time, due in part to bad weather." [3] --HJMG 22:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The change came in the 1830s; the era of the competitive crossing times published in the newspapers was the era of the clipper ship. --Wetman 01:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mysterious Force

Apparently there is a "mysterious force" that is emanated by a person when one is trying seriously to solve a problem. It then seems to attract (i.e. like a magnet) the answer from various "sources" and from other people. What would the term or word be for this phenomenon or "magnetic force"? --Doug ^talk 15:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Coincidence. - Nunh-huh 15:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Did I forget to mention, if you are really really serious on solving the problem you can "connect" to this force (i.e. like connecting to the internet). And I dare to say that only those that have experienced this "force" will know the answer.--Doug ^talk 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The latter experience was described by Madame Blavatsky as connecting to the Akashic record.. - Nunh-huh 16:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks! --Doug ^talk 17:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There, see what I mean. You found it for me! I was really really looking for this answer - and puff, there it came. Not only that, but I have sense found other answers for this. One being a Wikipedia article on Law of Attraction and similar "Laws" that have been written in various books by Brian Tracy, especially his book on The 100 Absolutely Unbreakable Laws of Business Success. I personally have experience this "force" many times. It works not only in finding research information like this, but in business as well. --Doug ^talk 17:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It didn't come to you, "puff"! It came because you asked on a reference desk. - Nunh-huh 18:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course it did. There is no magic here. Clio the Muse 18:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. You are absolutely correct in that I did ask for what this was and I received an excellent answer. However nobody came up with Law of Attraction which I did not know was on Wikipedia until after I asked this question. I was then "attracted" to this answer by some "force". Had I already known this was on Wikipedia I would not have asked what this was called, since the answer would have been Law of Attraction. However now I have several answers that I didn't have earlier today. Thanks again for your great answers and responses. --Doug ^talk 20:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It would seem easiest to assume that the "attraction" was a research interest and the "force" was clicking hyperlinks in relevant or related articles; otherwise, thinking of something and then hitting "Random article" a few times would seem to be superior to using the RD. I don't bring this up to mock but rather to point out that this has all the trappings of bad pseudoscience: untestable claims, answerable only by true believers, and the like. — Lomn 21:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

WTF? dr.ef.tymac 21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The excellent answer given to me was of Akashic record which is referred to as "a collection of mystical knowledge" which is approximately what I asked, which I referred to as a "Mysterious Force". I never mentioned magic, but did say it was "mysterious". Didn't set anything up as "trappings", but just trying to figure it out. Sorry. --Doug ^talk 21:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am just looking for answers, so please assume good faith. Not trying to make anyone believe anything (i.e. paranormal, religion, or otherwise), except for perhaps common sense "practical knowledge". However if you don't want to believe in that, its alright by me. I'll go by what works for me, you go by what works for you. My questions are just for finding out answers and are not any kind of "trappings". With that being said, I do believe that Brian Tracy has some excellent business common sense practical solutions that actually work. Not trying to make you believe them or even promoting any of his products (which most by the way you can get free at the library). He is about as far away from the paranormal as you can get and is about as close to practical applications as you can get. So when he talks of the Law of Attraction I pay attention. The book (ISBN 1-57675-126-0) I referred to above you can get at your local library free and it talks of this Law plus some 100 more. These mostly apply for business, however many apply to everyday applications. --Doug ^talk 22:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Trappings" refers to the outward signs or appearances of a particular thing or idea. It seems like you're interpreting the word to mean something along the lines of "trap". It doesn't, so Lomn's answer was probably not as antagonistic as you first thought. GreatManTheory 00:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, sorry. --Doug ^talk 00:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If memory serves, the core meaning of trappings is the equipment that goes on a horse, some of which may be purely ornamental. —Tamfang 21:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Polish Question

Apparently half a million Poles have immigrated to the UK in the past few years with the intention to work and send a chunk of their pay back home. Will this damage the UK economy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seans Potato Business (talk • contribs) 16:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

As far as I can determine, the presence of Polish people here is of enormous benefit to the British economy. The contribution they make, the money they spend and the taxes they pay, far outweighs that part of their income they send back home. Long may they remain, plumbers and all! Clio the Muse 16:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's say every one of them 1) displaces a UK worker who 2) makes the UK average of US$30,000 and 3) sends 100% of it home, paying no taxes and spending nothing to live or eat, and 4) provides no value to the UK economy. So that's 500,000 * $30,000 == $15,000,000,000, which is still less than 1% of the US$2 trillion UK economy. 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all *wildly* unlikely and even if true not too harmful, and Bob's your wujek.  :) --TotoBaggins 17:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

But how many Poles does it take to damage the UK economy? Azi Like a Fox 06:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Only one, if he's a clever saboteur. —Tamfang 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Economist recently mentioned that EU expansion has been most beneficial to those countries with the most open labor markets, including Britain. —Tamfang 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

red state blue state

why did they change the colors or the election from red meaning dem. to meaning rep.? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.86.190 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I can't understand your question exactly but the article Red_states_and_blue_states#Origins_of_current_color_scheme might help. -- Diletante 21:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Which doesn't answer the question, Diletante. The reason 'why' is not known, but it might be helpful to know why, in Australia, the liberal party is caled 'Australian Labor Party' and the conservatives are named 'Liberal.' ALP was named that way in the nineteeenth century to attract conservative votes. Robert Menzies created the Liberal Party in thye 1940's in response to a collapse of the conservative vote, to claim liberal votes, and represent the hopes and aspirations of middle Australia. DDB 06:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And of course because conservative and liberal mean different things outside America137.138.46.155 07:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This website provides some commentary on the red-blue thing. Apparently, before the 2000 election, the color associations were more fluid, with blue often being used for the Republicans, and red for the Democrats. For example, the author mentions that the term "Lake Reagan" was used to describe the NBC map of Reagan's landslide victory in 1980. It seems that by the time of the 2000 election, the big TV networks had developed a preference for Republican red and Democratic blue, and then newspapers like the New York Times followed suit. The 2000 election map was flashed at the US population on a daily basis, so it seems that these color associations stuck in people's minds, giving birth to the current "red state-blue state" rhetoric. --Lazar Taxon 06:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I can give anecdotal support for that. I certainly remember Red for Democrat in 1974 Congressionals, 1980 Presidential, and various by-elections throughout. In fact, I used to wish that the colors meant something and then believe they did and then wonder again. In non-partisan races, candidates will use a color on their yard signs, and, since 2000, that has been easy to figure. "This is a non-partisan judge's race, but Jimbo Jones and Kearney have red yard signs, so that means they're against the 4th amendment" is now more solidly encoded, but it sure as shootin' wasn't before. Utgard Loki 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't Nancy Reagan have a coat or something that was described as "Republican Red"? —Tamfang 20:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

what were humans doing around 784,000 BCE?

what were humans doing around 783,993 BCE? Do we have an article that corresponds to that period in time? Did humans even exist yet?--Sonjaaa 21:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Evolving from Homo Erectus, I think. - Eron ^Talk 21:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Take a look at our article Human evolution. Whether "humans" existed at your date depends on how you define "humans". Our species, Homo sapiens, did not yet exist, so there were no humans like us. Our likely ancestors, Homo erectus, did exist at that date. Bands of Homo erectus were hunting animals and collecting plant foods at the date you mention. They most likely did not have language. Marco polo 21:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

While it is the case that cave paintings and writing date back to 25k BCE, another livescience article, about a year ago, explored the issues of hairlessness and language acquisition. It is currently a theory that talking began as a result of mothers needing to put down their babies and work. The communication with the babies was sufficient to maintain security while concentrating elsewhere, noting that babies haven't the strength to hold on independantly of mother's help, as other primates may. Then, of course, mothers became aware, through evolution, of the ability to nag to produce work. The hairlessness is related to the study, but not language acquisition. Apparently we don't have as much hair as other primates so that we can visually check for insects. Homo Erectus had tools, but no writing, so language use is only conjecture. DDB 06:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Name of George Orwell's teacher

I am trying to determine the given name of one of George Orwell's teachers. The only things I know is that she was the wife of LC Vaughan Wilkes, headmaster of St Cyprian's School and that her nickname was "Flip." ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Flip and Sambo! Her maiden name, in full, was Cicely Ellen Philiadelphia Comyn, otherwise known as Mum or Flip to generations of little boys. Such, Such Were the Joys!

Anyone reading Orwell's early work will be aware of his hostility to all things Scottish, which takes various forms, most particularly his deliberate use of the word 'Scotch' instead of 'Scots', because he was fully aware of how much annoyance this caused. I used to believe that this dislike dated from his time in the Burmese Police, where he encountered a particular kind of Scotsman, once common in the Imperial service. It was only after reading his essay on St. Cyprian's that I became aware of the true cause. Flip deliberately encouraged a 'cult of Scottishness', in part derived from her pride in an assumed Scottish ancestry. The Comyns were one of the great nobel houses of Medieval Scotland, and one-time rivals to King Robert Bruce. But more than that the cult, brought out all of Flip's latent snobbery, and left poor Eric Blair with a deep sense of resentment: The School was pervaded by a curious cult of Scotland, which brought out a fundamental contradiction in our standard of values. Flip claimed Scottish ancestry, and she favoured the Scottish boys , encouraging them to wear kilts in their ancestral tartan instead of school uniform, and even christened her youngest child by a Gaelic name...But underlying this was something quite different. The real reason for the cult of Scotland was that only very rich people could spend their summers there...Flip's face always beamed with innocent snobbishness when she spoke of Scotland. Occasionaly she even attempted to trace a Scottish accent. Scotland was a private paradise which few initiates could talk about and make outsiders feel small. If anyone is puzzled by this (the Scots most of all!) I should make it clear that this 'Scotland' is not to be found in the backstreets of Glasgow, Edinburgh or Dundee, but on the grouse moors and by the salmon rivers, where the only Scots to be seen were beaters, game-keepers and ghillies! Such, indeed, were the joys. Clio the Muse 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)